Masculinity and Femininity

Feminine and Masculine

 

I have spent a considerable amount of time trying to identify precisely what femininity and masculinity are. The goal and purpose of this exercise is two-fold: 1) Because, as a man, it helps me to better understand what kind of man I ought to inspire to be; and, 2) because as a man, it helps me to better understand what kind of woman I ought to desire, and how to properly appreciate her.

 

Growing up, I would find myself being able to appreciate both “tomboys” and more traditionally feminine women. I think of one of my favorite anime series, Ranma 1/2 , where the main love interest of the protagonist is Akane; while, at the same time, many other courters are trying to gain Ranma’s affection. Like most young men, it was of significant importance to decide which of these love interests were most representative of the ideal woman. And while I could easily appreciate a woman like Akane, my favorite was Shampoo.

 

Both were presented as formidable martial artists, which is already diverging from the traditional idea of what a woman is. But Akane was most clearly a tomboy, and Shampoo was most clearly a lot more feminine. Both were, none-the-less strong and capable, if not a bit crazy in their own way. But despite the fact that I had chosen the more feminine choice, there was something to say about a woman possessing and expressing some amount of masculine qualities.

 

The question to propose before one can even go into a discussion about femininity and masculinity is whether or not these are even valid concepts. If they are not, then there is little significance in discussing what these concepts mean.

 

In the modern era, the idea of masculinity and femininity have been conceived as aspects of character entirely divorced from the biological and developmental differences between men and women. Particularly in light of the “trans movement,” people have come to accept that concepts of masculinity and femininity are arbitrary, socially-constructed, subjective ideas.

 

We can see quite simply why this is not true. That we can examine that women have a tendency to act and behave in certain ways as distinct from men, and vice versa. Even were we to take two infants—one male, one female—and raise them under conditions whereupon we could rear them without any influence of our cultural understanding of gender, we should expect—if we are being honest and rational—that some differences would emerge. What differences, to what extent, and how those differences are expressed is a more complex question.

 

Perhaps with one trial, we would not see much of a difference. But repeated again and again, we ought to expect to see some divergence of some kind. If, for no other reason, than the fact that men and women do, in fact, have a different biology.

 

We cannot dismiss the fact that men have more testosterone, and women have less testosterone. We cannot ignore the fact that women get periods, and men do not. We cannot ignore the fact that women have a more obvious and distressing process of going through puberty. Or that men, on average, have more physical strength and size.

 

Whatever the gender theorists want to proclaim as truth, before we even dive into the psychological differences between men and women—before we even ask the question of differences in brain chemistry, we have to acknowledge the fact that men and women do, in fact, have different biology, and that this is a key difference which will, inevitably, create distinct differences between how men and women behave, between what men and women value and choose to pursue, and the choices and actions which dictate how and by what means each will pursue that which they value.

 

Regardless, then, of whatever key differences we might surmise based on a hypothetical of isolated men and women who have no contact with one another, there is another aspect of the biological differences between men and women which we have to consider in terms of their interaction with each other. Namely that—due to biological necessity of the survival of our species—in order for mankind to have reached this point, the natural disposition of men and women have to be by necessity that they have some kind of urge or impulse to reproduce. Even if reproduction is not their primary goal—and, instead, their primary goal is to engage in sexual activity—the fact remains that if men and women were not naturally inclined to desire each other sexually, the species would scarcely have survived up until this point, and there would be nobody here to ask the questions about the nature of man and of woman, or to consider them.

 

The fact is that a man desiring a woman is man’s natural state; and a woman desiring a man is her natural state. And while not every man is sexually attracted to women, and not every woman is sexually attracted to men, it stands to reason that this is the normal sexual development of human beings. For if this were not the case, the human species would not longer exist. We would not have progressed to this state in human history. Our species would have long-ago gone extinct, and there would no longer be such thing as a human being.

 

As to whether or not human beings are naturally inclined to be exclusively heterosexual or whether they are more inclined to be naturally bisexual is an issue too distant from the point I am seeking to clarify. I do not believe that human beings are naturally bisexual, and I need no greater evidence than the fact that human beings overwhelmingly desire a monogamous relationship. For those who wish to argue that monogamy is not the natural relationship of human beings, I will not, here, offer any dispute—because it is simply irrelevant to the discussion. I will, in time, address this question, but not in this essay. Only that if human beings are monogamous by nature, then it stands to reason that they are heterosexual by nature because only heterosexual couples are capable of engaging in reproduction—and only those whose genes are passed on in fact are representative of, biologically speaking, the next generation. Those who do not reproduce end the lineage of their specific biology. And if it is biological reproductive tendencies with which we are concerned, then it is only the actualization of passing on one’s biology which has any relevance or significance.

 

A group of human beings who, for example, were biologically inclined to not reproduce—who, for example, rather than being inclined to experience sexual relationships with the opposite sex, were mostly-inclined to experience exclusively sexual relationships with the same sex, would not prevail in passing on their specific biological genes; and therefore, as if they hadn’t engaged in sexual activity at all, simply no longer be a part of the diversity of the human genome. Only those whose biology was consistent with the actualization of reproduction would stand any chance of surviving past one or two generations. And as such, it cannot be ignored that by virtue of the fact that human beings still exist, there must, by necessity, be a natural tendency to seek out and engage in sex with the opposite sex.

 

This is not a moral appraisal, but an appraisal primarily of biological necessity. As to whether there is anything good or evil about being heterosexual or homosexual is a question of ethics. And, therefore, it is a more complex issue than discerning what is normal in human development. To say that the normal development for men and women is to sexually desire each other says nothing about what is proper or right in their development. A connection can be made, but it isn’t obvious or clear-cut—nor is it relevant to this discussion.

 

Thus, we can, at minimum, recognize that there are key biological and developmental differences between men and women. That, at minimum, the sexual biology of men and women create certain differences in what an individual must consider in the course of their life.

 

One of the most obvious differences is that women can get pregnant, and men cannot. If pregnancy for human beings was simply a swift and unobtrusive process—such that once a woman got pregnant, the baby would emerge from her womb within a week without pain or effort—then the difference would not be so profound. But instead, giving birth to, and thereafter raising one’s child, is an incredible investment for both the man and the woman. Biologically speaking, the burden for women is significantly more so than it is for men.

 

It is a woman’s biological burden to develop the fetus in her womb, which increasingly consumes the resources her body needs to sustain itself. As the fetus grows into an infant, it increases in size, and so does her stomach. In addition to the changes in her appetite, in her nausea, in body aches and pains, there is also an increase in her heartbeat and physical activity becomes increasingly more difficult for her. Then, at last, she has the task of actually giving birth, which any mother will tell you was an experience which was profound, significant, and incredibly taxing on her body.

 

The simple fact that women can get pregnant and men cannot, I would offer, significantly explains why men are physically larger and more capable. Because pregnancy is so incredibly taxing—a process which men cannot aid his spouse in except in material support of sustaining her life and offering comfort—women become particularly vulnerable in the end-stages of pregnancy, whereupon her capability to engage in the kinds of activities necessary for sustaining her life become most difficult, and whereupon biological necessity would suggest that the man is born with the tendency to attach himself to a woman emotionally, such that he has the proper inner motivation to support her at the most difficult stages of pregnancy. Such that a man is inclined to develop a selfish interest in the woman, such that there is no psychological conflict between the needs of the soon-to-be mother and his interests of his own survival. Such that he is inclined to develop a vested interest in her life and her well-being. And then, when she is vulnerable from the burden of pregnancy, for him to have an in-born desire to see her live and succeed.

 

Then, there is another issue to consider, which is: once we have established that the normal development of men and women is heterosexual desire, then it stands to reason that the actual gratification of heterosexual sexual activity is also of some significant importance. If sex was pleasurable for the man only, then there would be little desire for the woman to engage in it. And, despite the fact that many men had for centuries overlooked women’s capacity to experience sexual pleasure—shockingly so—there is, none-the-less a biological necessity for her to have the physical capacity to experience sexual enjoyment as well—Particularly when, as technology increases in complexity, and women are, then, by virtue of such tools capable of defending themselves against the rape of a man, if women had no desire for sex, the species should shrink and decrease the more capable a woman would become as a result of tools she could use to defend herself against men.

 

It is not necessary that men and women desire sex for the same reasons and in the same way—only that the perpetuation of the species requires that men and women do both have their own reasons for desiring sex. And, as can be seen in women who do not want to bear children, the desire for sex is not absent. So the “baby craze” does not adequately or sufficiently account for women’s desire to have sex.

 

Or, some might offer that women desire sex because offering sex to a man ensures that he will take care of her and protect her. But if this were true, a woman who is extremely competent and capable of taking care of herself would not desire sex either. Rather, I would suggest, that what we see is that the more competent and self-reliant a woman is, the more she tends to desire sex with men. She may, then, have higher standards of which men she chooses to sleep with and why, but her desire for sex doesn’t diminish, only her desire for weak and unworthy men diminishes.

 

Having established this framework, we can adequately say that there are clear differences between men and women, from which the concept of femininity and masculinity are derived. Some might say that masculinity is the sum of qualities most-often expressed in men, and that femininity is the sum of qualities most-often expressed in women.

 

I, however, do not see masculinity and femininity in this light. I do not view these concepts as pertaining only to observation of actual outcomes and probabilities. I hold that masculinity and femininity represent qualities of characters which are proper and desirable in each sex. It is a highly abstract projection of that which is the best within men qua men, and the best within women qua women. That the concept of masculinity is a standard of judging the quality of a man as a man. Not judging a man as a human being, necessarily, but judging him specifically in terms of his function and role as a human being possessing certain biological characteristics. And, as such, femininity is the standard of judging a woman as a woman—and not judging a woman as a human being.

 

It is proper, however, to point out that a man can only be a man and cannot cease to be a man, any less than a woman can exist as anything other than a woman. To say that a person is a good and worthy human being is only to discuss that which is common for both sexes. But, in actuality, a man must be judged as a man, because he cannot be a human being which is not a man. Any and every human being is either a man or a woman. One cannot be a human being without being one or the other. Gender theory not withstanding, despite the desire to create a third, or a fourth, or a four-hundredth category of gender. In actuality and in fact, every human being is either a man or woman as determined by his or her specific biology.

 

Even the existence of anomalies such as hermaphrodites does not disqualify this binary view of sex and gender. And while there are men who “identify” as a woman, or vice-versa—or even those who identify as “agender,” which the claim to have a gender which is not a gender, an obvious contradiction; or that there are those who identify as “non-binary,” which is a concept equally absent of meaning and definition—the actual objective fact is that any person born a man is a man in fact; and any person born as a woman is a woman in fact. Human beings do not have the capacity to alter the gender with which they were born, which is synonymous with their sex, which is synonymous with important biological distinctions such as which set of genitals they were born with, and which chromosomes.

 

This, again, is not to offer any moral appraisal of transgenderism. I’m sure you can guess with some degree of accuracy what my views on this would be. But it is not relevant to the discussion, and so I will leave it to your own judgement as to what you might guess my views to be. What I am offering is only that the facts of reality are the facts of reality, not to be altered or wished away by changing one’s perspective of their perception of reality. That to imagine one’s self as a woman does not, in fact, or in any significant way, alter the fact that a man is born a man and must remain a man. Whether a man is masculine or feminine, or logical or illogical, or accepts the biology he was born with or undergoes expensive life-altering surgeries to alter his biology, or whether he has a normal amount of testosterone or a sub-normal amount of testosterone, or whether he chooses to accept the fact that he is a man or chooses to suppress his testosterone and take androgynous estrogen to alter the biology of his body to appear to be more like that of a woman—No matter what he thinks or does, he cannot escape the fact of being born a man, and the fact that there is nothing else for him to be. Just as a man does not become a woman because he develops a sexual attraction to other men; so he does not become a woman by altering and mutilating his body, nor by virtue of the fact that he begins to wear wigs, dresses, and carry a purse. Just as a gay man is still a man; so a transgender “woman” still remains a man, in fact.

 

What, then, is the significance or importance of the concepts of “masculinity” and “femininity” in human lives? Are these standards something that we can define? Are these standards something that men and women should properly achieve in their character? And what, precisely, are these qualities and the basis of these qualities? Is it necessary for the proper and optimal development of a man to be masculine? Or is it equally valid for him to develop a more feminine personality? Is it necessary for the proper development of a woman to accept and embrace her femininity? Or is it equally as valid for her to develop herself as a masculine personality? Regardless of whether or not the concepts of masculinity and femininity are valid concepts derived from and pertaining to the sex of the human being, is there any necessity, function, or benefit in adhering to these biologically-derived concepts?

 

First, let us just briefly discuss what the Objectivist philosophy offers as a view of man. More broadly, what the Objectivist offers as a view of a human being. That is to say that the Objectivist philosophy is not merely a prescription for those of the male sex; but, despite the common use of the masculine in explaining its principles, it is to be understood that the same principles of action which apply to men equally apply to women—whenever no specific distinction is offered.

 

There are three cardinal values which the Objectivist philosophy offers as the proper ruling principles of man’s existence: Reason, Purpose, and Self-Esteem.

 

Reason as man’s only tool of survival, his only means of knowledge, and his only proper guide to action.

 

Purpose as the values and goals his tool of survival is to achieve.

 

Self-esteem as his inviolate certainty that he is competent to live and worthy of living.

 

Self-esteem consists of the certainty that man is competent to live, and worthy of living—meaning competent to achieve his values, and worthy of enjoying his values; which can be expressed as “Self-Confidence” and “Self-Respect.”

 

Self-Confidence means his conviction that his mind is capable of judging what values he ought to hold, is competent to deal with the facts of reality by the authority of his own first-hand judgement, and is competent to deal with the facts of existence adequately to achieve his specific values in action.

 

Self-Respect means his capacity to value the beneficiary of his action, namely himself. Self-Respect means the belief that he is morally and existentially right for existence, and that he has the capacity to earn the values he achieves, which means the conviction that whatever values he achieves, he has a proper moral right to the enjoyment of those values. The belief that his capacity to achieve his values does not diminish or damage his enjoyment of the character of himself. That there is no conflict between his values and his character.

 

These three values are equally applicable to men and women.

 

Women, no less than men, can only acquire knowledge by the faculty of reason.

 

Women, no less than men, need reason to guide their choices and actions if they are to succeed in achieving them.

 

Women, no less than men, need values to serve as the source of their life and their happiness, and have no less need to discover by a process of reason which values they ought to hold and for what purpose.

 

Women, no less than men, need purpose as a guiding principle of their life and existence, the corresponding virtue of which is the virtue of productiveness. Meaning that women, no less than men, need a guiding purpose in their life of creating values in their life, of acting productively towards the maintenance of their life and happiness.

 

Women, no less than men, need the recognition that their mind is capable of dealing with the facts of reality, and achieving their chosen values in reality.

 

Women, no less than men, need the inviolate certainty that their character is consistent with their values, to know that their person is worthy of happiness, to know that their person is something that they can value, can fight for, and can live for.

 

Women, no less than men, have to act towards the achievement of their own values, and therefore, their own happiness. And, as such, they have no less necessity of valuing the beneficiary of their actions, of valuing their self.

 

What is essentially different between men and women, then, is the difference between the specific values a man and woman choose to pursue qua man or qua woman. The difference in values between men and women from the basis of that which in them is specifically a man or specifically a woman. Not the broader values which are proper to all men and all women. The values of Reason, Purpose, and Self-Esteem are fundamental to human beings in general, regardless of their biological sex. The difference emerges in the details—of that which is uniquely proper to a man, versus that which is uniquely proper to a woman, within the more broad generalization of what is proper to all living human beings.

 

Having established this foundation, I will offer to suggest that masculinity and femininity are defined by those qualities of men and women which are optimally necessary for self-actualization. That a man who is not masculine or a woman who is not feminine can still, never-the-less, lead happy and fulfilling lives; but that these qualities of character are necessary for the optimal capacity to achieve that final end. Optimally necessary with respect to the unique aspects of our lives which are specific to what sex we are born with, and what that necessarily implies.

 

Foremost, it is worth noting that sex is not an unnecessary aspect of our lives. It is, in fact, psychologically a normal, healthy, and beneficial celebration of our existence. Sex can become a self-destructive pursuit and activity. But properly, rationally, it is an expression of affirmation of our existence, and a celebration of the fact that we exist, and are right for existence. Just as love and companionship are basic human needs, so is sex. But just as one can live a happy and fulfilling life even without having a partner, so one can live a happy and fulfilling life without the experience of sex. But in order for a man or woman to optimally and fully experience the greatest sense of self-fulfillment and self-actualization, love and sex are both necessary values worth pursuing.

 

And, because sex is such an important value to our lives, it makes an incredible amount of difference how and by what means we experience it. And, in this respect, there are biological differences between men and women, purely based on the kind of genitals one is born with, which establishes by what means one is capable of experiencing sexual enjoyment.

 

But further, there are also other considerations which are distinct between men and women with regards to the consequences of sex. For one, women can get pregnant; men cannot. A woman who gets pregnant has no choice about the fact that her body will begin developing a baby within her; and, if no action is taken to abort the pregnancy, she will eventually give birth to a child.

 

For a man, the same is true, except that it is her body, not his which is forming the baby. It is her physical body which will be affected and impeded, not his. It is her who will experience the pain and hardship of pregnancy, not him. And she cannot easily run away from that responsibility, but he can—particularly when it is not definitive that he is, in fact, the biological father of the baby.

 

Thus, promiscuity for a man is not a very good policy, particularly when he is reckless in careless about potentially getting a woman pregnant. At worst, if he runs away from the responsibility of being a father, he will have to pay child support—but need not be directly or meaningfully involved in the child’s life.

 

The woman, on the other hand, may put the child up for adoption, but is so intimately connected to the child (by virtue of having developed the child in her womb and given birth to it), that it is far more difficult for a woman to make this decision. To abandon one’s child, for a woman, is very much like abandoning part of one’s self. Whereas this may be true for a man to some extent, the connection is less obvious and less intimate. That the man, seeing the infant emerge from the woman, has to establish that connection on his own.

 

Thus, a man who takes no measure to avoid getting women pregnant may not have his life changed in any meaningful way; whereas for a woman, pregnancy almost always means assuming the responsibility of parenthood unless she chooses to have an abortion, which itself is a difficult and demanding decision. If she is not prepared to make that decision, there is the emotional frustration she must endure in making that choice to consider as well. And, if she does not know which man got her pregnant, she cannot reasonably rely on the support of a partner in her responsibility.

 

And as such, in this basic sense, a woman, by necessity of her biology, must be more thoughtful, careful, and considerate about her decisions of whom to have sex with and for what reasons. Sex is a meaningful activity for both men and women, but it is an activity that, for women, comes with much more considerations.

 

And, these kinds of considerations will, necessarily, shape how men and women view sex differently. And, as such, it is not merely that men and women have different genitals which cause them to experience sex differently, but also the deeper, life-altering considerations which frame such considerations.

 

When two partners are cautious and careful about such potential consequences, there is one more major factor to consider, which is the union and biological compatibility of the two sexes. More specifically, in the realm of sex in particular, the man is the dominant initiator and the woman is the submissive receiver. A man penetrates the woman, and the woman must be penetrated.

 

This, properly, forms the basis of a healthy disposition between the sexes and towards the opposite sex, such that a man should properly desire to be the dominant sexual initiator, and the woman should desire to be sexually submissive. Not submissive in every respect—not obedient! But submissive.

 

In other words, a man has a basic sexual urge to, in a sense, “dominate” a woman sexually. To be in control. While a woman has a basic sexual need to be able to appreciate and enjoy his domination—which means, not that she should be able to enjoy being dominated however and by whatever means she is dominated. There is no basic necessity for a woman to, for instance, enjoy being physically forced into sex such as in rape. Instead, a woman should feel a deep sense of hatred, and perhaps a response of violence and revenge, should she ever be raped by a man. It is not hyperbole to say that a woman who is raped should feel a desire for the death of any man whom has raped her. That, I hold, is moral and proper. She should, if she is a woman of self-esteem, want a man’s life to end should he ever violate her in that manner. (And we in society should hold a similar disposition towards this violation, whenever and to whatever extent an instance of rape has been proven by irrefutable evidence.)

 

What I am speaking of in terms of a woman properly being submissive in sex, and of a man dominating her in sex, is a mutual desire—a mutual understanding—a mutual end. An act which is voluntary in nature and understood as the desire for both. An act in which the submissiveness of the woman is an act of her giving into the ecstasy and enjoyment of the man’s strength and confidence. An act whereupon the woman is enjoying the value of the man by allowing her to be taken by him—not an act of him taking her against her will.

 

Now, because there are biological differences between the sexual fulfillment of men and women, there are differences in attitudes and desires between men and women—between what they seek and want to experience from one another. And, in contra-distinction from the religious or “naturalistic” view of the man-woman relationship, I would offer that the differences in goals and desires arises primarily as a result of the desire for sexual (and, therefore, emotional) fulfillment.

 

Both the religious view and the animalistic (or “naturalistic”) view of man holds as the primary foundation of sexual differences between men and women the necessity of reproduction from a biological standpoint. The religious view holds that the purpose of sexual relationships is achievement of being “fruitful and multiplying,” in keeping with God’s commandments. The more “scientific” perspective is that men and women desire sexual relationships because their biological purpose in existing is to reproduce—and that this is the consideration which ought to be the foundation of sexual experience.

 

However, a brief analysis of thought should tell us that reproduction is not an end in itself. Reproduction may be, evolutionarily speaking, an explanation of why we have developed to seek sexual pleasure; but this is discounting the fact that human beings are a species which are not born with innate values, and which must choose their values by a process of conscious decision-making. That our capacity to choose our values makes it possible for us to act against our nature, and because we are capable of choosing our values, we are capable of acting according to the decisions of our conscious judgement, and not merely acting according to base instinct and necessitated responses. That, in other words, we are endowed with the capacity for free will, which means endowed with the capacity to choose which values which want to hold, and for what reasons.

 

What a man values in a woman, or what a woman values in a man—but also what a man values in himself as a man, and what a woman values in herself as a woman—depends heavily on how each perceives their proper (and desirable) relationship with the other.

 

Therefore, the expression of masculinity in a man and femininity in a woman is properly an extension of the goal or purpose of that relationship—a large part being their sexual attraction to each other—meaning a desire for sexual fulfillment from each other. And whilst a man and woman can desire each other’s affection without sex being their basic motive, it is at least, in part, understood that sex—the celebration of their love—is part of the goal.

 

Thus, even if they both mutually agree that they want to remain abstinent for the time—even if they agree that what they want to focus on primarily is their spiritual and intellectual connection and growth without the complication of sex—they still maintain a connection to the fantasy of enjoying each other sexually. This is, at least, the case for a proper romantic relationship—because sex is the ultimate act of self-celebration, and the ultimate celebration of the person of another—the ultimate affirmation of the non-futility of human existence, and an affirmation of the achievement of all of one’s other values.

 

Therefore, because a man is the sexually active partner and a woman is the sexually submissive, the dynamic between men and women tends to be a reflection of this relationship—such that a woman typically desires a man who is a confident initiator or leader in their potential partnership, and a woman is most-often the final judge or final decider as to whether a partnership can or will be formed. That a man most-often has the responsibility of making himself into the kind of a man that a woman is capable of appreciating; and a woman is often met with many suitors, but most act discriminately and contentiously about who she chooses to experience love, romance and sex with. That it is most-often the man who impresses the woman, and a woman who reciprocates by showing the man that he is appreciated.

 

And this is a distinct difference in the approach of men to women and vice versa. That just as in sex the man is the initiator and the woman the willing receiver, that so, too, in the realm of expressing affection, the man is most-often the driver, and the woman is the navigator. The man presents his character to the woman, and he leaves it to the woman to recognize and approve of him. That a man offers the value of his intimacy, and that a woman has to accept and invite him to be intimate.

 

This does not describe all romantic relationships fully and consistently, but it describes the underlying principles at work. And moreover, it describes how the spiritual connection of men and women are formed from the viewpoint of the simple, undeniable fact of each of their biology. And that is the proper framework on which to understand and identify the root of masculinity and femininity—and to decide what qualities are properly masculine, what qualities are properly feminine, and to recognize the fact that masculinity and femininity are achievements of character with respect specifically to man’s relationship to women, and vice versa; and, in particular, that relationship in terms of romantic love and sexual experience.

 

Thus, the next question to answer is: what, then, is an expression of proper masculinity, and what is an expression of proper femininity? There are things of each that we can recognize and appreciate—but I hold that most of the things that people think of as masculine or feminine are merely secondary factors arising from the primary factors.

 

For instance, we understand that physical strength and prowess are often regarded as being masculine traits; while physical weakness and vulnerability is often held to be feminine in nature.

 

In fact, when you think about what most people in society regard as masculine and feminine, you may observe that femininity is almost exclusively defined as the antithesis of masculine traits.

 

That society holds that masculinity means confidence, and that femininity means indecisiveness. That masculinity means being strong, and femininity means being weak. That masculinity means being a leader, and that femininity means being a follower. That masculinity means dominance, and femininity means obedience. That masculinity means rationality, and femininity means driven by irrational emotional impulses.

 

But, as should be clear from the cardinal values of Objectivism, there is a contradiction here. The most obvious contradiction is the belief that femininity means “driven by irrational emotional impulses.” If, as Objectivism offers, it is proper and necessary for both men and women to be rational, then if femininity means the optimal achievement of character as a woman, then this would entail that a woman should be both rational and irrational, which is a contradiction in terms.

 

Rather, what there error is is in what people conclude femininity means. Masculinity is most-often better understood than femininity; and I would suggest that femininity is so sparsely understood that it represents a confession of ignorance of those who often offer their opinion that everything they regard as feminine is merely a negation of that which they mean to be masculine.

 

And here, I will offer what I have come to decide is the proper basis of understanding the two. For both men and women, one of the cardinal requirements of rationality and of the successful development of one’s character is the value of self-esteem—the value of recognizing that one is competent to live, and worthy of living—the development of the integration between self-confidence and self-respect.

 

And here, then, is the key difference between masculinity and femininity. Both sexes require the achievement of a radiant, authentic self-esteem. Both sexes need the value of productive work and of the capacity to be the dictators of one’s own survival. Both sexes need reason in order to identify their values and goals and to achieve them. But the distinction between masculinity and femininity lies in the difference between self-confidence and self-respect.

 

Since self-esteem is properly an integration of self-confidence and self-respect, one cannot have self-esteem without having a healthy measure of both. A man of self-esteem is attracted to a woman of self-esteem; and vice versa.

 

The difference, then, is not as to whether or not a man or a woman has self-esteem. Properly speaking, they should. The difference is that masculinity is predominantly derived from the expression of a man’s self-confidence; and a woman’s femininity is predominantly derived from the expression of her self-respect.

 

What do I mean?

 

Well, consider again the role that each generally plays in the courtship. A man, in order to attract a woman, first makes himself worthy of her. He does not plead with her or beg her to accept him and to bond with him. Such begging and sympathy would be unattractive in a man. The woman is not attracted to his need of her, but to his confidence, his ability, his intelligence, his integrity, and his self-reliance. She is attracted to his self-sufficiency in practical matters, in emotion, in morality, and in the total integration. She is attracted to that which he is by virtue of that which he is capable of, which is why a woman is most-often found fantasizing about marrying a doctor, or a lawyer, or some man of some other profession that she admires and respects. She is attracted to men of a specific profession because this is a symbol of that within him which makes him capable of adequately and competently succeeding in those professions. Not because she is attracted to his success, but that she is attracted to those qualities of character which makes such success possible. She is attracted foremost to his capacity to perceive the world and act rationally in the achievement of his own values. And this is a source of her pleasure, and the cause of her admiration for him as a man.

 

Conversely, femininity is the expression of a woman’s self-respect, which we can understand quite clearly in the fact that a woman is quite-often tasked with the responsibility of choosing her partners, and is not primarily the pursuer. Whom she chooses to share her affection with, and more specifically, whom she chooses to have sex with, is an incredible indication of the degree of her self-respect.

 

This does not mean that a woman is deficient in self-confidence, only that self-confidence has less to do with her femininity than does her self-respect. And her femininity is an expression of her self-respect which a man is predominantly attracted to.

 

A woman of radiant self-esteem is attracted to a man she views as a hero; and a man of self-esteem is attracted to a woman who is capable of admiring his heroic qualities. A woman is attracted to a man who is capable of efficacious action; while a man is attracted to a woman who is critical, discerning, and can judge him correctly. A man attracts a woman by ruthlessly making himself into the kind of man worthy of earning the affection of a woman; whilst a woman attracts a man by ruthlessly shaping her mind into being capable of sufficiently distinguishing between virtues and flaws. While both sexes have a selfish need to be rational, to be productive, to have a fully integrated authentic self-esteem—in the realm of relationships, sex, and attraction, this distinction between self-confidence and self-respect forms the fundamental basis of masculinity and femininity, which leads to all of the subsequent distinctions between the qualities which less critical and superficial people recognize as masculine and feminine traits.

 

A man, for example, focuses a lot more attention on his career than he does his appearance, though, properly, he should have some concern for how he presents himself to others. While women are often far more concerned than men are with their physical appearance, with fashion, and with beauty than are men, regardless of how invested a woman is in her career.

 

A career woman will, necessarily, be less concerned about superficial beauty than will a woman who views herself as a housewife that needs to be taken care of. But unmistakably, female vanity—the pleasure a woman takes in taking pride in her physical beauty—is a uniquely proper and healthy expression of her femininity.

 

The reason is because men take pride in their capacity to fully express their self-confidence—the actual capacity to understand and deal with the facts of reality in action. While women take pride in their sense of self-respect, the pride of self-appraisal, of self-appreciation, and of having the qualities of character which makes one able to enjoy and appreciate the values one has achieved and earned.

 

And, thus, as a result, men are attracted to the woman’s self-respect predominantly (but not exclusively); whilst women are attracted predominantly to a man’s self-confidence (and not exclusively). But that these aspects of self-esteem are the fundamental basis of drawing the distinction between masculine and feminine qualities, and represent the achievement of the best in men, and the achievement of the best in women, of that which men and women of proper authentic self-esteem aspire to be, and what they are properly attracted to in each other.